Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 678 - AT - Income TaxIncome from undisclosed sources - production of Baggase & its sale without accounting for in the books of accounts - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Clear finding is given by the CIT(A) that the main product is sugar, which is excisable commodity and the production is under the control and supervision of Excise Department and not a single specific instance has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer where the sale of baggase has been made outside books. The yield of main product or byproduct is not constant in each and every case and every year. It is dependable on so many factors and therefore, merely on this basis that in the case of one assessee in one particular year, higher yield was recorded and that should be considered as yield of baggasse for all the assessees in all the years, is not correct. There is no other reason given by the Assessing Officer for doubting the yield of baggasse reported by the assessee in the Tax Audit Report. - Decided in favour of assessee. Suppression of production of sugar and its sale - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Apart from giving one case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill, Puranpur, no other basis has been indicated by the Assessing Officer for doubting the yield percentage reported by the assessee. In this regard, this is very important to note that production of sugar is directly under the control and supervision of Excise Department and this is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any adverse finding has been recorded by the Excise Department. In the absence of any material brought on record by the Assessing Officer indicating sugar production suppression, thus no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A)- Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 43B - dispute on account of cess on tax - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Amount of cess is same i.e. ₹ 70,13,524/- at the beginning and end of the year. When this amount was outstanding on the first day of the accounting year, no addition is called for in the present year although the assessee would have been eligible for deduction if any payment would have been made by him in the present year. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not on scientific basis. Since the order of CIT(A) is cryptic, we feel it proper that this matter should go to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision by way of passing speaking and reasoned order. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Late deposit of employees deduction to Provident Fund for Factory and Federation Staff - CIT(A) deleted disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) - Held that:- Entire amount of P.F. contribution was deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing of return of income and therefore, the same is allowable as per the amended provisions of the Act. Therefore, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of closing stock of sugar at ₹ 1,59,03,900/- including the excise duty of ₹ 9,70,660/- - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- There is no finding given by CIT(A) regarding the main objection of the Assessing Officer that the same stock for which the assessee adopted rate of ₹ 1,630/-, ₹ 1,665/-, ₹ 1,700/- and ₹ 1,735/- respectively per quintal as on 31/03/2006, in the present year, the assessee has applied a rate of ₹ 1,250/- ₹ 1,285/-, ₹ 1,320/- and ₹ 1,355/- per quintal respectively. If the same stock is lying then what is the basis of applying lower rate in the present year is not clear and CIT(A) has not given any finding on this aspect. Hence, on this issue, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for deciding the issue afresh by passing reasoned and speaking order - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
|